"The NOAAPORT broadcast system provides a one-way broadcast communication of NOAA environmental data and information in near-real time to NOAA and external users. This broadcast is implemented by a commercial provider of satellite communications utilizing the C-band. It's primary purpose is for providing internal communications within the National Weather Service and for providing forecasts, warnings and other products to the mass media (newspapers, radio stations, TV, etc.), emergency management agencies, and private weather services.

The NOAAPORT satellite communications system is operated by GTE Corp., under contract to the NWS. The system uses satellite transmitting (i.e. "uplink") equipment at NWS forecast offices throughout the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Each uplink site transmits NWS-generated weather information products which are then re-broadcasted via satellite to users."

Hardware:

> I am about to buy a satellite dish used. Believe it was used for TV reception before mini dishes took off and cable wasn't available. So its not new, but should function.

If the dish is in good condition, the worst thing you'll need to buy for
it is a decent LNB.

> I probably will not install it until the Spring. In the meantime, I'll try to start acquiring everything else I need to ingest the data into a PC in my office.

If you've got a PC, you're half way there. All you need now is a DVB
data receiver of some sort. Either the Novra S75s people here like to
use or a datacapable DVB PCI card like the Twinhan or Broadlogic.

> Anyway, just thought I'd post something to say say Hello again. Any advice or pointers are welcome. I now live in SE Michigan and my the front of my home directly faces South and the back of it faces North (not true North of course). Advice on dish placement, etc. would be welcomed.

From where you're at, you'll need at least a 10ft dish and it will need
to be mounted somewhere where it can see the southwestern sky. You'll
be looking at AMC2/4 at 101 degrees west.

I am able to receive good NOAAPORT data using one Windows computer to
both control the Twinhan receiver and also decode the signal.

So, if you are enjoying NOAAPORT as a hobby and prefer to keep the cost

low, you need only a dish with the LNB feed and a Windows computer with
a PCI TV."

"From what I know, the Novra S200 will be able to receive and pass NOAAPort
data just as the S75+ (and S75), and it is dvb2 capable also."

"And there are some quite nice cheap cards and USB dongles that
demod DVB-S2 very well also. Somewhat pricier than the cheapest Twinhan
or Broadcom but not budget busting...

Only issue is the DVB-S2 signals are often 8PSK and that implies better signal quality (bigger dish or strong tranmission from the satellite).

A switch to DVB-S2 would likely render marginal dishes more marginal
or even completely useless..."

Dish:

"AMC-4 died. Americom brought AMC-2 out of storage and
moved it over, then turned the lights out on AMC-4. Then they renamed
AMC-2 to AMC-4.

If you use an older sat meter that locks on analog, it comes up as
AMC-2. If you use a newer meter that locks on digital, it comes up as
AMC-4, as Americom reprogrammed it to display as AMC-4."

Unidata, IDD and history:

"The Unidata Internet Data Distribution (IDD) System now delivers real-time atmospheric science data to nearly 100 universities nationwide. The IDD is a fully distributed system based on Unidata Local Data Manger (LDM) systems running at each of the participating sites. In the IDD, the LDM at a source site takes data from the source and sends it to LDMs at downstream relay nodes who in turn relay the data to other sites. This fan-out approach scales with an increasing number of sites as long as enough relay nodes can be established. The IDD/LDM technology has been shown to work in the real world of the Internet for a substantial, but limited, amount of data."

Politics:

<quoted from internet sources>

"This data is already accessible on the internet via IDD, but it is not
publicly available as a real-time feed. However, there are several
repositories where this data can be accessed via HTTP or FTP in a
non-real-time manner."

"NWS has access to most of the data via IDD/LDM if needed."

"NOAAPORT via IDD/LDM if I have understood it correctly is only avaiable for
university users such as students or dot edu folks?
I did try install the core LDM and got stuck due to I did not have enough
credit (not a university member or not having a dot edu email)

"The IDD distribution "rule" has very little to do with bandwidth
capacity; it is about IP (Intellectual Property), contractual
obligations to data providers, and support for that IP and data
connectivity.

You are mixing apples with oranges . . . the IDD and NOAAPort. The IDD
was established for the University and research community (including

.gov) and includes proprietary data IP - thus the restrictions on who

gets to attach to the IDD. It hasn't been recently, but I am aware of
at least one instance when a University node was nearly dropped because
it allowed access to its node from a commercial entity without prior
consent from UNIDATA. If you are an administrator or faculty member at
a University, you can do what you want . . . but understand that
violating the rules could get you cut off from the IDD.

And there are "rules" to NOAAPort, as well - WMO Resolution 40. I have
been relatively silent about the redistribution efforts of some on this
list for NOAAPort data . . . however, that effort can screw us all in
the end if the source nation for protected data - data currently on
NOAAPort - feels that the US (via NOAA) is not doing enough to abide by
WMO Resolution 40, they will simply yank it or rewrite the contract with
NOAA so that their data no longer on NOAAPort. In fact, this has
already started to take place with data from Bracknell - NOAA has not
been able to put new ECMWF or other UK data sets on NOAAPort because of
the relative lack in IP protection as perceived by the Brits.

The thing with NOAAPort is that it is relatively assured that reception
will be in the western Hemisphere by the footprint of AMC-2/4. Unless
R40 has changed in the past year, there are no R40 limitations on data
distributed or collected in the western Hemisphere except lightning data
and ACARS - and it is that reason that lightning data and ACARS are
encrypted on NOAAPort. It is the redistribution of data from a source
nation *back* to the source nation or compact nation that violates R40.

The fact is, what Jerry and Patrik are doing are exactly what several
European countries do NOT want to happen; data collected at a ground
station in the US distributed, with no value add or limitation, back to
an EU nation that may or may not have IP limitations.

And just because you are not "selling" that data does not make you
immune to a tort for damages; I guarantee that if the Republic of
Ireland wants to make an example of Jimmy Trailercourt and his backyard
"TeeVee" dish allowing access to protected Irish buoy data - Jimmy will
be out of a trailer. Or worse (at least for all that benefit from
NOAAPort) Ireland will simply no longer give NOAA the ability to
redistribute said data except on the AWIPS LAN.

I'm all for free data . . . but ignorance of the rules is not a defense;
abide by the UN/WMO resolutions or suffer the fate of even additional
loss of international data on NOAAPort. And it is not a stretch, as
NOAA continues to add data to the AWIPS LAN because it cannot put it on
NOAAPort because a bunch of yahoos don't like rules - that NOAA will
discover that it can distribute all its data needs via the AWIPS LAN,
and then bye-bye NOAAPort.

In the end, NOAAPort's purpose is for feeding WMOs and other government
centers. They could care less, contractually, if Gilbert receives data
in Illinois (not picking on you Gilbert - you are one that I know
understands) - a non-*.gov can call NCF all they want, but if the NOAA
facilities are not having a problem, they could care less what issues
non-*.gov users may have. And Americans on this list can bemoan the
"I'm a tax payer" argument, but fact is that being a tax payer doesn't
entitle you to raw data - at least from NOAA in real-time. It entitles
you to information that helps you protect your life and property - and
NOAA's stance will be that the NWR accomplishes that, and the private
media fills in the gaps. And Patrik or David T. certainly does not pay
taxes in the US."

"I'll chime in...

1) BANDWIDTH - There is no restriction that I know of to use LDM to
redistribute data... weather or otherwise. The only real restriction
is bandwidth. Since the LDM does not use multicast (unless I've missed
something), it can be costly to redistribute a lot of weather data over
an open Internet connection.

The full NOAAPORT feed is about 4-8mbit/sec. This means a T1 connection
is not enough to get the full feed. If you are relaying, you need to
multiply the incoming feed by the number of outgoing feeds you have.

Most small companies generally have limited bandwidth and thus probably
couldn't handle an LDM feed with any significant about of weather data
on it.

2) RESTRICTED DATA - The various feeds of weather data do have some
restricted, proprietary and commercial data on it.

First you have prorietary data. For example, NOAAPORT has NLDN
lightning data which is reserved for government use only. We've been
told that our NOAAPORT customers cannot use the NLDN data on NOAAPORT
even if they have a license to read NLDN formats.

Second, there are restricted data such as Resolution 40 data from other
countries. NOAAPORT contains a lot of international data that is under
Res. 40. This prevent redistribution of data back into the countries or
regions that create the data. This is because, outside of the US,
weather data and information are not subsidized by the Federal
Government and thus they rely on sales of that data to recover costs.
Models like the ECMWF and UKMET models that are on NOAAPORT can have
limited redistribution. This is a fuzzy gray area. In my talks with
the NWS, they would prefer people not to redistribute those models even
though it's OK to redistribute them within the US. But the NWS realizes
that once you start open redistribution, people exploit the privilege
and violate redistribution rules. The NWS can lose their rights to put
that data on NOAAPORT if we abuse the privilege.

If you look at Unidata's IDD, there are a lot of data that are either
proprietary or restricted. Clearly redistributing that feed outside of
the educational arena would not be allowed.

3) CHANGES TO NOAAPORT? - I heard some talk about changes to NOAAPORT in
the future. This is because of changes with the AWIPS system and a
reworking or how data might be transmitted. Currently there is a lot of
data duplication on NOAAPORT. A lot of this is due to the requirements
of the current AWIPS system. But this will change with AWIPS II. The
future model for NWS data distribution could change as a result:

I) NOAAPORT II - this is a satellite broadcast of data but only data
required by all WFOs. Think of this as the lowest common denominator.

II) LDM - this is an internet broadcast of data for that information
that is required by each WFO or what I call locally required data.

III) Web services - these are one time requests of data for special
situations.

There is no reason why this couldn't be done on a wider scale. Most
weather enthusiasts don't need a live feed of weather data and it's
possible that web services and limited LDM data distribution could be
possible and not overwhelm local bandwidth restrictions. I haven't
really looked into what web services are available for weather data or
whether this is even being approached outside of the NWS. But these are
possibilities in the future."

NOAAPORT is not Unidata:

"I was part of the original Unidata steering committte in the early 80's
and created the specifications for the minimal workstation. You are
correct in that the Unidata stream is limited to Unidata membersm which
are primarily universities. There is some very limited participation on
the part of companies who are involved with the NWS/NOAAport project. No
the Unidata datastrem is not the same as the NOAAport data stream. It is a
far better datastream since it contains a lot things NOAAport does not,
think CRAFT and CASA."

"To add to the discussion of restricted distribution, if I understand it
right, there is also the ECMWF & UKMET full model data on the LDM/IDD
broadcasts which are limited to .gov & .edu domains. They want what
they perceive as their competition ( Jo Public & his private
meteorological forecasting / value adding company) to pay for that data
& the only European data on NOAAPort is the limited data cleared for
public distribution. To get the full European GRIB data (and some obs
data as well, I think) you have to sign a contract with the ECMWF
declaring you are a .gov or .edu or I think, a private individual who
will not redistribute the full data...otherwise you have to pay for
it...just like the full Meteosat data. The METSAT is encrypted and you
have to pay for a decryption unit to get everything which is not
transmitted in the 'clear' which is every three hours."

"EUMETSAT data is free to private individuals, schools colleges, and many
research organisations. The expensive decryption unit for 1.7GHz systems
was phased out some years back when Meteosat-8 and Meteosat-9 took over
the Europe/Africa mission, and EUMETCast replaced direct HRI broadcasting.
You are correct that people who make a profit from the data, or
redistribute it (TV stations for example) may have to pay.

Strangely, Meteosat-8/9 "in the clear" data is only every six hours,
whereas everyone else's is every three hours. Erm?

EUMETSAT also offer data over the Internet, which is free if you accept a
24-hour delay."

"I was at that Partners Meeting back in June. The bottom line is that
there won't be any major changes to NOAAPORT before 2013 but there could
be significant changes after that. They mentioned that there are
contractual obligations to keep the current content as is for a while.
The question of the move to GRIB2 was asked and that transition for
NOAAPORT is still on hold.

Right now, the easiest way to redistribute model data is over the SBN
and the NWS is planning on ramping up the amount of model data. Also,
there are some new radar products on the way and some additional
satellite imagery down the line. So they are investigating a move to
DVB2 which has better compression and error recovery. I don't know how
this will affect the receivers but this switch could come as soon as
next year."

"Some in the private meteorological industry have argued that the NWS
only have two functions:

1) collect weather data
2) issue public weather warnings

I haven't heard anyone state they want to deal with the infrastructure
of collecting the data but they don't want the NWS to redistribute the
data. In other words, NWS data is for NWS use only. This was actually
one of the first edicts of the Reagan administration. Prior to 1981, if
you wanted weather data, you could install a telephone line to a local
NWS forecast office and they would give you a variety of feeds: DDS,
PPS, FAA604, etc. After 1985, people, companies, and universities had
to get their data through a private company. Those were WSI, Kavouras
and Alden (Unisys was added in the early 90s). This cutoff of data
access gave rise to entities such as Unidata which lobbied for cheaper
access to universities and other educational institutions. Unidata
ended up contracting with Alden to get the data and developed the LDM to
save the data. This also gave rise to the era of satellite distribution
of weather data as these private companies needed a way to broadcast
data and landlines wouldn't work.

So for 13 years, if you wanted weather data, you had to get it through a
private company. That all changed with two new concepts. First was the
internet. Web sites that went online in the mid 90s were becoming a way
for people to once again gain access to free weather data. Second, was
NOAAPORT. In one fell swoop, NOAAPORT killed off the private weather
data distribution system. There are smaller Ku band satellite feeds
still available but it's small business relative to what it was in the
mid 90s.

There are many in the private industry who want a return to the days of
the 90s where they were the access point of data outside of the NWS.
But I believe this is unrealistic now. The reason is the amount of data
that is out there, which is doubling about every 5 years. It has now
grown past the ability of private industry to replicate. Can you
imagine a WSI or Accuweather launching their own NOAAPORT service?

The question now is how much data is too much. The NWS argument all
along has been that if they create the data for internal use, they might
as well put it up on NOAAPORT or onto the FTP and web servers for others
to use. The private industry argument is that the NWS should not
provide data that is already being provided in the private sector. In
other words, the NWS should not infringe on existing private sector
business. Well, the NWS has repeatedly violated this argument in the
last decade. I hear this over and over again in the NWS Partners
Meetings which at times are all-out verbal feuds. Private industry
feels that if they can't talk the NWS out of invading their business
space, they'll go to Congress to get it done that way.

The second issue is public weather warnings. Private industry does not
want to take this on because of liability issues. The government has a
blanket immunity from prosecution. Even though some think their teams
of lawyers can get around this, almost everyone is in agreement that
warnings should be left to the NWS. But other than warnings, the
private sector believes they should be able to issue their own watches
and advisories.

So in the battle between private and public weather information, we seen
various pushes one way or the other over the last 30 years. The
Santorum bill would have virtually eliminated the weather service
overnight relegating it to the role I described above. It's interesting
because over the last decade, public access to the NWS data and
forecasts has been dwindling. Go back to the mid 90s and watch a TV
broadcast. Most of them reported the NWS forecasts for the area. Today
none do. All weather forecasts are now filtered through a private
company that provides the data and forecasts to a TV or radio station.
Most companies run their own computer models and create their own
watches and warnings even though the latter is for internal use only.
Unless you go to weather.gov or a university web site, you are not
getting NWS forecasts. So to a certain extent, much of what Santorum
argued for is already in place. But what that bill would have done was
to eliminate the NWS from creating those forecasts, watches and
advisories entirely. They're not widely used anymore anyway is how one
person described it to me.

The new argument I've heard is that with the newer technology, the NWS
can do more with less. As a result, the NWS is free to now venture into
areas that private industry did ten years ago. In other words, a
duplication of effort. So why not cut the NWS budget. Of course, with
any government entity, they meet budget cuts with fierce opposition.
We've seen this in the past. In the early 90s, the Bush administration
wanted to cut the NWS budget by about 15%. The NWS responded by saying
it would cut back on data acquisition by reducing the surface
observation network by 30% and go to once a day soundings. They also
said the Hurricane Center hurricane hunter program would be all but
stopped. So to fight the cuts, they would drop essential programs and
not any fat within the agency. The budget cuts were dropped.

It seems like every 3-5 years we see another one of these proposals to
cut NWS funding. Now we see that Senator Hutchinson wants to transfer
about $150 million out of the NOAA budget (about an 8% cut) and move it
into the new efforts of immigration detention. If you're not familiar
with that, it is an effort to create holding camps for illegal
immigrants where they will be held awaiting deportation. Texas and
California are to have the largest networks of these camp. Hence the
effort by the Texas Senator to transfer funding.

We'll see where this goes!"

"This brings up an interesting point. The use of data....

One issue private industry has with the NWS is not the availability of
data but how it's delivered. Clearly the mission of the NWS is
different than that of private industry. Here are a couple of examples:

When private industry distributed NIDS, many of the requirements was to
have data sent from the radar to the end user in seconds. But when the
NWS took over NIDS distribution, this was no longer possible. Even
though it was better that the NWS eliminate the duplication of effort
(i.e. every NIDS vendor having to have 140 telephone cricuits, one for
each radar), it didn't help that the latency in the NWS system was
almost a minute. This is because the NWS never had a critical need for
real time radar data outside of the radar site at each WFO. Industry
suffered as a result.

Also, the TV industry needs live radar data. The problem on the NWS
side has always been that those radars do volume scans and thus you get
a tilt 1 reflectivity product once every 5-10 minutes, not continuous
like TV stations would like. So TV stations went out an invested in
their own radars. There are actually far more of those radars out there
than NWS WSR88Ds.

Industry would like to see continuous updates of surface observations,
not the 1 hour or at best 20 minute updates. Again, this is outside of
the needs of the NWS. Now, you can get this from networks like what
WeatherBug has put together. You could argue this network is far more
complete than the NWS surface network.

Industry has been demanding better model data. A key need of private
industry is high temporal resolution output, say 15 minute output. The
NWS only does 1 hour at best and the better models are sent at 3 hour
intervals. This has sent many in private industry to create their own
computer model runs (either with MMM or WRF) to get the output they
need.

I know in energy trading and commodity futures, need for international
data is critical and there is a real lack of high resolution model data
outside of North America. Again, this is not a critical need of the
NWS.

So what does private industry do?? I think the frustration is not
whether private industry is more cost effective in collecting the data.
I think it's more related to the fact the needs of private industry are
totally different than the needs of the NWS. I think private industry
controlling the observation network comes more from a need to control
the output than doing it cheaper.

Clearly competition works but replicating huge networks of observing
platforms and the infrastructure to collect, manage and distribute it
doesn't make any sense. If you had it over to one company with exclusive
rights to collect and distribute means that access to that data could
become very costly. A good example of that is lightning data.

There is no doubt the NWS, which lacks competition, has become
complacent when it comes to these issues. But to replace the NWS with
private collection and to make it competitive doesn't make sense either.
How you correct it is an interesting debate."